> Bottom line, you need to convince the PO that taking the time (possibly incrementally over a few sprints) to make adjustments to your team's development process can have positive benefits for the PO's investment to "allow" it to happen.

+1. It's the PO's decision, and if the team believe it's an real issue they can provide information about the impact of the issue so the PO can make a well-informed decision. He/she may not consider it as important an issue as the team members do. Conversely, he/she might recognize the value of fixing it if properly informed about the impact.

Cheers,
Dave

Ron Jeffries

Hello, Nicolas. On Wednesday, April 1, 2009, at 1:55:24 PM, you ... Seems to me that the PO would notice if the story wasn t done, because the feature would

Message 2 of 11
, Apr 1, 2009

0 Attachment

Hello, Nicolas. On Wednesday, April 1, 2009, at 1:55:24 PM, you
wrote:

> I don't know if it's ok or not, but it happens and that's the main point

> We (as a team) defined for this current sprint a task called "rename objects
> in the entity framework model". We did this because we have an architecture
> team which approves (or not) our code.

> If the code is not approved, it won't go to prod => PO will never see all
> the business value

> ¿Should we eliminate this task? ¿Should we do it silently consuming hours
> from other tasks? The PO does not even know it exists and we cannot show it
> in a demo because is not something visible.

Seems to me that the PO would notice if the story wasn't done,
because the feature would never go out. So I think the PO probably
could and should value the story.

I'm not sure, though, how to make it able to be demonstrated. Maybe
someone will think of something.

Having an external architecture team that approves things after the event is inefficient and ineffectyve, except for slowing things down and creating more

Message 3 of 11
, Apr 1, 2009

0 Attachment

Having an external architecture team that approves things after the event is inefficient and ineffectyve, except for slowing things down and creating more work. Why aren't they incorporated into the development team and are closelt bound into the collaboration? And what happened to naming standards that people could follow? You have a significant waste, it would seem, by having to rework some stuff.

Regards,
Roy Morien

To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.comFrom: dnicolet@...Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:00:02 +0000Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Is it possible as a scrumteam to plan in our own stories in the sprint?

Hi Nicolas,

Do you think renaming objects in a model would take a significant amount of time? It doesn't *sound* like a big deal, on the surface. If not, then just do it as you work through other items.

Did the team know of the naming conventions required to go to prod? If so, then why didn't they follow the required conventions the first time?

If the team didn't have that information, then why not? Could be a communication breakdown in the organization, or a lack of collaboration with the architecture team at the start of the project. These are not the PO's problem. Non-functional requirements and organizational standards are the technical team's responsibility.

You may not be able to demo this directly, but you can certainly explain the situation to the PO. I'll bet he isn't stupid.

Cheers,Dave

--- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, Nicolas Mohamed <nicolasmohamed@ ...> wrote:>> I don't know if it's ok or not, but it happens and that's the main point> > We (as a team) defined for this current sprint a task called "rename objects> in the entity framework model". We did this because we have an architecture> team which approves (or not) our code.> > If the code is not approved, it won't go to prod => PO will never see all> the business value> > ¿Should we eliminate this task? ¿Should we do it silently consuming hours> from other tasks? The PO does not even know it exists and we cannot show it> in a demo because is not something visible.> > > Nicolas> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----> www.unavisiondistin ta.blogspot. com> > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM, William Berger <Bill.Berger@ ...>wrote:> > > Reading this post gives the distinct impression that you perceive there> > are rules to how Scrum works. My understanding is that there are guidelines> > and principles, not hard-n-fast rules. I believe Scrum is not intended to be> > a playbook with rules to run a scrum by, but rather a set of guidelines to> > be considered as the scrum team figures out how to most effectively build> > the software functionality the PO deems most desirable (and 'pays' for) for> > any given sprint.> >> > So, I'd first recommend that:> >> > > "Is it possible, as a scrumteam, to plan in our own stories,> > > even if the product owner disagrees?"> >> > is a moot point for this forum. The implicit answer is "Of course it's> > possible" from a Scrum philosophy perspective.> >> > But I suspect that's not the intent of the question. You cannot get> > "advice" from this group that will enable you to bypass your own internal> > politics. It seems to me you're looking for permission to do something your> > team deems appropriate for more effective software creation but haven't> > gotten the 'go-ahead' to do it for whatever reason (including not having> > asked yet).> >> > If your workday is governed solely by what backlog items exist in your> > sprint backlog, then this is really a question for your PO. Bottom line, you> > need to convince the PO that taking the time (possibly incrementally over a> > few sprints) to make adjustments to your team's development process can have> > positive benefits for the PO's investment to "allow" it to happen.> >> > Of course, there is the philosophy of self-organization in Scrum. If your> > organization supports self-organization deeply enough, I would suggest you> > need not get permission - that the team decides what workday efforts are> > appropriate to complete a sprint once the sprint backlog has been decided.> > So, you could simply have the team agree to fewer backlog items and roll the> > process improvement into the development process (again, possibly> > incrementally) until complete. Your team velocity may take a hit, but then> > again, so does the speed of a sailboat as you adjust your sails to take> > better advantage of atmospheric conditions.> >> > Bill Berger> >> > > >>